Ryano
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@ctesiphon wrote:
It was always the intention to keep the back pitch, Peter (not sure who owns it, Tuborg). The new orientation will be the same as the old. Had they turned it 90 degrees, the capacity could have been higher. Perhaps closer to the 65,000 suggested, or possibly more. But as you say, it probably wasn’t possible on this site (with this orientation), which makes me wonder if it might have been possible at another site…
Actually, they originally produced a plan for a 65,000 seater stadium incorporating the back pitch, but decided against it. The IRFU owns the back pitch and Lansdowne have a tenancy agreement that runs out in a few years’ time. The IRFU made the claim that this is an “unbreakable” agreement, but I don’t think anybody really buys that.
@dodger wrote:
There is no precedent for a local authority financing or part financing to the extent SDCC is for the building of a sports stadium for one code.
But there are plenty of precedents for central government doing same. Does the fact that it’s a local authority rather than central government really make that big a difference? The only difference I can think of is that in the case of the local authority much of the money will have derived from commercial rates and development contributions rather than “the taxpayer” as you say above.
@alonso wrote:
the reason it’s so high is also due to the shape which was necessary for the northern end. I’m also sick of hearing the Liberty Hall comparison. As we all know, it’s irrelevant given the proposals around the city. It’s just a hackneyed cliche.
That’s the applicant’s case, and it may well be valid. In fact thay have submitted that the height is purely a function of trying to provide the optimum viewing angle for each spectator. I’m sceptical of this claim, however, as comparisons with other modern stadiums don’t show similar height profiles. It’s also rather convenient that the extra height allows them to fit in lots of other uses which are not currently part of the stadium complex.
I mention Liberty Hall only for scale – 48m doesn’t mean much to most people, “slightly shorter than Liberty Hall” is more meaningful. However it should be pointed out that the highest point of the stadium is the leading edge of the roof over the pitch, which will not be visible from most vantage points. The perceived height in most cases will be between 35-40m I think, which is still taller than Croke Park. I don’t really have a problem with the height myself, in fact I think it will be a very impressive building, but there’s no doubt that residents nearby have a lot of cause to complain, because of the loss of sunlight and daylight. The applicants admit that the sunlight and daylight available to many houses after construction will be well below the guideline levels, but they’re arguing that there are special circumstances.
I agree that the other uses should not be part of it. They do take up a lot of space, but if they were removed it wouldn’t make that much difference to the height. restaurants and conference facilities are within the super-structure of the main stands which are defined by their capacity. What it does show is that the current stadium is underutilised. These facilities are in all modern stadiums, but they may not be necessary here. After all the HQ’s of the FAI and IRFU will be at Abbotstown and they should use these facilities rather than Lansdowne Road
The applicant was trying to say yesterday that these uses all exist on the site at present, because there’s a small Paddy Power betting kiosk, they already hold meetings in the existing boxes, and they provide hospitality in tents on the back pitch. They also said that the idea that the stadium would be used as a conference centre is “one of those myths that has sprung up somehow”. But I don’t see how you can interpret the applicant’s own figures for use of the stadium on non-match days in any other way.
it is not the duty of the applicant to undertake flood control for the Ringsend/Sandymount area. The proposed development will not cause extra flooding, therefore this issue is a red herring. It’s up to the City Council to sort this issue out, and so far they’ve been utterly negligent, as far as i can tell.
Actually as far as I know the City Council’s policy, based on guidance from the DoE, is to get developers to provide flood protection works as part of the development. Here’s a Sunday Times article on the issue. The works needed to implement the recommendations of the Dublin Coastal Flooding Study go way beyond the City Council’s financial resources. The only way they can achieve flood protection is through big grants from the OPW or contributions from developers.
@stira wrote:
Among concerns are the stadium height, the demolition of a house on Shelbourne Road, flooding consequences and loss of part of the Dodder walkway. The height bit is valid, demolition of the house who cares, flooding consequences, this sounds like scare mongoring and trying to come up with all the objections they can, the river is very controlled and when they are spending several hundred million euro on the stadium im sure sorting out whatever issues with flooding will be no problem, and the loss of part of the dodder walk way, the dodder has miles of walkway, its probably a miniscule piece they are taking.
A lot of people in the area still can’t get insurance against flooding because of the major flood events in 2002, so I don’t see how you can say “the river is very controlled”. The plans for the stadium don’t include any specifics on flood defences.
@alonso wrote:
the thing about the height is a bit misleading. The reason it’s so high is because the north stand is so low, as low as it is now, to accomodate residents.
It’s not just high relative to the existing stadium, it’s high relative to other similar stadiums. It’s about 13m higher than Croke Park, and just a little shorter than Liberty Hall. The reason for the height is that the new stadium will have lots of extra floor space devoted to corporate boxes, restaurants and meeting facilities which aren’t in the current stadium.
Parking was a major talking point today (I was there, but I ain’t sayin why) as was flooding, even though the hearing began with a letter from the OPW stating that flooding would not occur. The development of conferencing and restaurant non-event day facilities was a major issue as is the lack of a limit on the number of events… fair enough i reckon. The demolition of no. 70 Shelbourne road is a vaild objection, as I’m sure many archiseekers will agree. There are a number of spurious objections, my favourite was one bloke who said it should be in Abbotstown, where there’s no traffic problem (yeh, the same abbotstown on the M50)
There was a lot of nonsense talked about parking all right, one appellant asking that loads of car parking spaces be provided. If I were a resident nearby the last thing I would be looking for is parking spaces for the stadium, which would only lead to a massive increase in traffic on match days. Some appellants are taking the view that it should be moved out of the city, but I think most people are saying they don’t object in principle to the stadium being redeveloped on site.
More on this in today’s Irish Times: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0811/1154691577021.html
A builder who paid more than €7 million for a detached 1920s house in Palmerston Park and subsequently demolished most of it has sought planning permission from Dublin City Council to build a new house on the site.
The planning application was lodged by Felix Whelan, who owns Garland Homes, three weeks after he was served with an enforcement order by the council halting demolition work on the original house because it was in breach of an earlier permission.
According to a spokesman for the council, Mr Whelan had permission to build a large extension to the side and rear of the house on a half-acre site at the corner of Palmerston Park and Orchard Road.
This would have involved partial demolition of the house.
However, after local residents complained about the extent of the demolition work, planning enforcement officer Barry White inspected the site and found that only part of the ground-floor front wall was still standing.
Well, we have a little picture of the wooden section of the Samuel Beckett Centre on our web site:
.You might get more pictures at the website of
the
Drama Department.If you’re doing a project on the Beckett Centre, let me tell you as somebody who has spent the last six years of his life in it, that it is a shambles. Personally, I think that the wood-clad exterior is spectacular, but the building just doesn’t work properly for any of the purposes for which it was intended.
1) the building contains two theatres and a dance studio. We in Players run one (Players Theatre) and the Drama Department run the other, as well as the dance studio. However, nobody thought that it might be a good idea to soundproof the place, which has caused enormous problems over the years when two shows are scheduled at the same time. Also, the dance studio is directly above Players, so if a group are using it while a show is running in Players, the audience at the Players show are invariably subjected to a shower of dust from the ceiling.
2) The teaching space (there is only one room – hopelessly inadequate) is not properly ventilated – if you open the windows it is not possible to have a class, as the traffic outside is too loud.I could go on. Of course, it has its good points (Players itself actually works quite well as a unit), but I think that the failure to soundproof is a fundamental flaw.
[This message has been edited by Ryano (edited 15 June 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Ryano (edited 15 June 1999).]
Although the likes of Hawkins House and O’Connell Bridge house are unrelentingly awful, I find myself more incensed by more recently built stuff, such as the Woodchester building opposite Christchurch, or that Statoil garage on the Quays. Some of these buildings should be entered in evidence in the Flood tribunal to prove that planning in Ireland is corrupt – or at least inept.
Somebody recently built a new warehouse on my street (Bow Lane in Kilmainham) which boggles the mind with its blandness and unsuitability for the site. It consists of a four story high blank wall, which stretches for about a hundred metres, directly facing the blank wall of St Patrick’s hospital.
What is the explanation: corruption? drugs? sheer stupidity?
If anyone is familiar with the building I’ve desribed, I’d love to hear other peoples opinions on it.
At first, I was of the opinion that only prison sentences being handed down would serve as a deterrent against this sort of thing happening in the future. However, I’ve had a better idea:
The demolition was a clear-cut crime, so shouldn’t the Criminal Assets Bureau be empowered to sieze the site? The idea that the O’Callaghan Group should now be entitled to develop the site is an outrage. Of course, they should also be made to pay the full £1 million fine, and, yes, a couple of years in prison might put manners on the likes of these.
